[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.209.104.7. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 453
Citations 0
Original Investigation
May 16, 2019

Evaluation of a Remote Diagnosis Imaging Model vs Dilated Eye Examination in Referable Macular Degeneration

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137(7):802-808. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.1203
Key Points

Question  Can nonmydriatic imaging equipment, located at the point of service, help in the identification of referable macular degeneration?

Finding  In this study of 159 patients in facilities with high rates of diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration, a retinal imaging device appeared to be equivalent to a standard examination in detecting referable macular degeneration within a setting with relatively high disease prevalence.

Meaning  A remote diagnosis imaging model may facilitate the identification of patients with referable retinal disease; this capability may assist in delivering timely treatment and warrant future research.

Abstract

Importance  In improving clinical outcomes, developing a sustainable, transformative care delivery model is important for accessible, efficient, low-cost, high-quality community-based imaging and diagnosis of retinal diseases.

Objective  To test the feasibility and accuracy of the remote diagnosis imaging model as a clinical screening tool to facilitate the identification of referable macular degeneration.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A nonrandomized study of 159 patients was conducted in sites with a relatively high disease prevalence (Duke University Health System endocrinology clinic and 2 Duke University Health System assisted living centers in North Carolina). All patients underwent remote diagnosis imaging, defined as color fundus photography (CFP) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) of nondilated pupils, acquired by nonexpert imagers using a retinal imaging device located at the point of service. The criterion standard examination was defined as a traditional dilated eye examination performed by retinal specialists. Deidentified remote diagnosis images were graded for interpretability and presence of referable macular degeneration, defined as any condition requiring a retinal specialist attention. Data analysis was performed from November 20, 2015, to February 10, 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Primary outcome was feasibility of the remote retinal imaging. Secondary outcomes were operational characteristics and diagnostic and referral accuracy.

Results  Of the 159 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age of enrolled participants was 65 (17) years, with a female to male ratio of 1.3 to 1. Most patients were white (111 [69.8%]), 44 were black patients (27.7%), approximately 1% were Asian patients and Hispanic patients, and 2 patients declined to disclose their race/ethnicity. Thirty-five eyes (22.0%) were determined to require referral to the retinal specialist by criterion standard examination. Remote diagnosis image interpretability was better when OCT was used compared with CFP (241 [96.4%] vs 164 [65.6%]). Remote diagnosis had high diagnostic accuracy in identifying referable macular degeneration: OCT and CFP both had 94% sensitivity (95% CI, 84%-98%), and OCT had specificity higher than for CFP (93% [95% CI, 87%-96% ] vs 63% [95% CI, 53%-71%]). Substantial agreement was found between the criterion standard and OCT (κ = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001) and between the criterion standard and CFP (κ = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.87; P < .001). The nonvalidated patient satisfaction survey revealed that 122 participants (76.7%; mean score, 4.16; 95% CI, 3.98-4.35) preferred remote imaging over the standard care examination.

Conclusions and Relevance  Remote diagnosis imaging and a standard examination by a retinal specialist appeared equivalent in identifying referable macular degeneration in patients with high disease prevalence; these results may assist in delivering timely treatment and seem to warrant future research into additional metrics.

×